bug#45474: [External] : bug#45474: Icomplete exhibiting in recursive minibuffer when it shouldn’t

[Drew Adams]

> your objection reduces to just "you're proposing a
> change and I have no idea what you're talking about
> but I'll object anyway because by definition a change
> may break something".  You're right, but it doesn't
> bring anything to the discussion.

That's insulting, and not a helpful or fair
characterization.  I didn't object simply because
a change, any change, may break something.  I think
you know that.

I said clearly, at the outset:

   Apologies for not following this thread, and so
   possibly misunderstanding what you mean there.

That's a polite way of asking for clarification of
what you wrote there.

I said what I guessed you meant, and I said that if
that's what you meant then it's problematic for me.

It was clear that I understood you to be proposing
non-dynamic scoping for `minibuffer-completion-table',
based on your saying:

   instead of being "set" by dynamic scoping

And it was clear that I wasn't sure ("possibly
misunderstanding") what you meant by that phrase.

If you didn't mean that, and it was clear to you
that I was misunderstanding you, you could have
simply said so, and clarified what you meant.